NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CEBU CITY AND AUGUSTO PACIS, AS TREASURER OF CEBU CITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS.

Is a public land reserved by the President for warehousing
purposes in favor of a government-owned or controlled corporation,^[1]
as well as the warehouse subsequently erected thereon, exempt from real
property tax?

Petitioner National Development Company (NDC), a government-owned
or controlled corporation (GOCC) existing by virtue of C.A. 182^[2]
and E.O. 399,^[3]
is authorized to engage in commercial, industrial, mining, agricultural and
other enterprises necessary or contributory to economic development or important
to public interest. It also operates, in furtherance of its objectives,
subsidiary corporations one of which is the now defunct National Warehousing
Corporation (NWC).^[4]

On 10 August 1939, the President issued Proclamation No. 430^[5]
reserving Block No. 4, Reclamation Area No. 4, of Cebu City, consisting of
4,599 square meters, for warehousing purposes under the administration of NWC.^[6]
Subsequently, in 1940, a warehouse with a floor area of 1,940 square meters,
more or less, was constructed thereon.^[7]

On 4 October 1947, E.O. 93 dissolved NWC^[8] with
NDC taking over its assets and functions.^[9]

Commencing 1948, Cebu City (CEBU) assessed and collected from NDC
real estate taxes on the land and the warehouse thereon.^[10] By the first quarter of 1970, a total
of P100,316.31 was paid by NDC^[11] of
which only P3,895.06 was under
protest.^[12]

On 20 March 1970, NDC wrote the City Assessor demanding full
refund of the real estate taxes paid to CEBU claiming that the land and the warehouse standing thereon belonged to the
Republic and therefore exempt from taxation.^[13] CEBU
did not acquiesce in the demand, hence, the present suit filed 25 October 1972 in the Court of First Instance of
Manila.

On 29 May 1973, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch
XXII, promulgated a decision^[14] the dispositive portion of which reads
–

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing the City of
Cebu, thru the Treasurer of said
City, to refund to the plaintiff, National Development Company, the real estate
taxes paid by it for the parcel of land covered by Presidential Proclamation
No. 430 of August 10, 1939, and the warehouse erected thereon from and after
October 25, 1966, with interests thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint and the
costs of the suit.”

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals which however
certified the case to Us as one involving pure questions of law, pursuant to
Sec. 17, R.A. 296.

In this appeal, CEBU assigns five (5) errors^[15]
imputed to the trial court which may be synopsized into whether NDC is exempt
from payment of real estate taxes on the land reserved by the President for
warehousing purposes as well as the warehouse constructed thereon, and in the
affirmative, whether NDC may recover in refund unprotested real estate taxes it
paid from 1948 to 1970.

On the first question, CEBU insists on taxability of the subject
properties, claiming that no law grants NDC exemption from real estate taxes,
and that NDC, as recipient of the land reserved by the President pursuant to
Sec. 83 of the Public Land Act,^[16] is
liable for payment of ordinary (real estate) taxes under Sec. 115 thereof. CEBU contends that the properties have
ceased to be tax exempt under the Assessment Law^[17] when
the government disposed of them in favor of NDC, and even assuming that title
to the land remains with the government (ownership being the basis for real
estate taxability under the Assessment Law), the Supreme Court rulings
establish increasing trend in the application of “use” of property
rather than “ownership” as basis for real estate tax liability.

On the other hand, NDC maintains that Sec. 3 of the Assessment
Law, which exempts properties owned by the Republic from real estate tax,
includes subject properties in the exemption. It invokes the ruling in Board of Assessment Appeals vs. CTA & NWSA^[18] which held that properties of NWSA, a
GOCC, were exempt from real estate tax because Sec. 3 of the Assessment Law
applied to all government properties whether held in governmental or
proprietary capacity. NDC rejects the applicability of Sec.
115 of the Public Land Act to the subject land, claiming that that provision
contemplates dispositions of public
land with eventual transfer of title. In addition, NDC believes
that it is neither a grantee of a public land nor an applicant within the
purview of the same provision.

As already adverted to, one of the principal issues before Us is
the interpretation of a provision of the Assessment Law, the precursor of the
then Real Property Tax Code and the Local Government Code, where “ownership” of the property and not
“use” is the test of tax liability.^[19]

Section 3, par. (a), of the Assessment Law, on which NDC claims
real estate tax exemption, provides –

“SEC. 3. Property
exempt from tax. – The exemptions
shall be as follows: (a) Property owned
by the United States of America, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, any
province, city, municipality or municipal district x x x x”

The same opinion of NDC was passed upon in National
Development Co. v. Province of Nueva Ecija^[20] where
We held that its properties were not comprehended in Sec. 3, par. (a), of the
Assessment Law. In part, We stated:

“1.  Commonwealth Act No. 182 which created NDC
contains no provision exempting it from the payment of real estate tax on
properties it may acquire x x x x There is justification in the contention of
plaintiff-appellee that x x x x [I]t is undeniable that to any municipality the
principal source of revenue with which it would defray its operation will come
from real property taxes. If the National
Development Company would be exempt from paying real property taxes over these
properties, the town of Gabaldon will be deprived of much needed revenues with
which it will maintain itself and finance the compelling needs of its
inhabitants (p. 6, Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee).

“2.  Defendant-appellant NDC does not come under
the classification of municipal or public corporation in the sense that it may
sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in
this sense, it is an entity different from the government. Unlike the government, defendant corporation
may be sued without its consent, and is subject to taxation. In the case of NDC vs. Jose Yulo Tobias, 7
SCRA 692, it was held that ‘x x x plaintiff is neither the Government of the
Republic nor a branch or subdivision thereof, but a government owned and
controlled corporation which cannot be said to exercise a sovereign function
(Associacion Cooperativa de Credito Agricola de Miagao vs. Monteclaro, 74 Phil.
281), it is a business corporation, and as such, its causes of action are
subject to the statute of limitations. x x x That plaintiff herein does not exercise sovereign powers – and,
hence, cannot invoke the exemptions thereof – but is an agency for the
performance of purely corporate, proprietary or business functions, is apparent
from its Organic Act (Commonwealth Act 182, as amended by Commonwealth Act 311)
pursuant to Section 3 of which it ‘shall be subject to the provisions of the
Corporation Law insofar as they are not inconsistent’ with the provisions of
said Commonwealth Act, ‘and shall have the general powers mentioned in said’
Corporation Law, and, hence, ‘may engage in commercial, industrial, mining,
agricultural, and other enterprises which may be necessary or contributory to
the economic development of the country, or
important in the public interest’, as
well as ‘acquire, hold, mortgage, and alienate personal and real
property in the Philippines or elsewhere; x x x make contracts of any kind and
description’, and ‘perform any and all acts which a corporation or natural
persons is authorized to perform under the laws now existing or which may be
enacted hereafter.”

We find no compelling reason why the foregoing ruling, although
referring to lands which would eventually be transferred to private
individuals, should not apply equally to this case.

NDC cites Board of
Assessment Appeals, Province of Laguna v. Court of Tax Appeals and National
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA). In that case, We held that properties of NWSA, a GOCC, were
exempt from real estate tax because Sec. 3, par. (c), of R.A., 470 did not
distinguish between those possessed by the
government in sovereign/governmental/political capacity and those in
private/proprietary/patrimonial character.

The conflict between NDC
v. Nueva Ecija, supra, and BAA
v. CTA and NWSA, supra, is
more superficial than real. The NDC decision speaks of properties
owned by NDC, while the BAA ruling
concerns properties belonging to the
Republic. The latter case appears to be exceptional because the parties therein stipulated –

“1. That the
petitioner National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) is a public
corporation created by virtue of Republic Act No. 1383, and that it is owned
by the Government of the Philippines as well as all property comprising
waterworks and sewerage systems placed under it” (underscoring
supplied).

There, the Court observed: “It is conceded, in the stipulation of facts, that the property involved
in this case ‘is owned by the Government of the Philippines.’ Hence,
it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines and falls squarely within the
letter of the above provision.”

In the case at bar, no
similar statement appears in the stipulation of facts, hence, ownership of
subject properties should first be established. For, while it may be stated that the Republic owns NDC, it does
not necessarily follow that properties owned by NDC are also owned by the Republic
– in the same way that stockholders are not ipso facto owners of the properties of their corporation.

The Republic, like any
individual, may form a corporation with personality and existence distinct from
its own. The separate personality allows
a GOCC to hold and possess properties in its own name and, thus, permit greater
independence and flexibility in its operations. It may, therefore, be stated that tax exemption of “property
owned by the Republic of the Philippines” refers to properties owned by
the Government and by its agencies which do not have separate and distinct
personalities (unincorporated entities). We find the separate opinion of Justice Bautista-Angelo in Gonzales v. Hechanova, et al.,^[21] appropriate and enlightening –

“x x x x The
Government of the Republic of the Philippines under the Revised Administrative
Code refers to that entity through which the functions of government are exercised, including the various arms through which
political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or
other form of local government, whereas a government instrumentality refers to corporations owned or controlled by the
government to promote certain aspects of the economic life of our people. A government agency, therefore, must necessarily refer to the government
itself of the Republic, as distinguished from any government
instrumentality which has a personality distinct and separate from it (Section
2).”

The foregoing discussion does not mean that because NDC, like
most GOCC’s, engages in commercial enterprises all properties of the government
and its unincorporated agencies possessed in proprietary character are
taxable. Similarly, in the case at bar,
NDC proceeded on the premise that the BAA ruling declared all properties
owned by GOCC’s as properties in the name of the Republic, hence, exempt under
Sec. 3 of the Assessment Law.^[22]

To come within the ambit of the exemption provided in Art. 3,
par. (a), of the Assessment Law, it is important to establish that the property
is owned by the government or by its unincorporated agency, and once government
ownership is determined, the nature of the use of the property, whether for
proprietary or sovereign purposes, becomes immaterial. What appears to have been ceded to NWC
(later transferred to NDC), in the case before Us, is merely the administration
of the property while the government retains ownership of what has been
declared reserved for warehousing purposes under Proclamation No. 430.

Incidentally, the parties never raised the issue of ownership
from the court a quo to this Court.

A reserved land is defined as a “[p]ublic land that has been
withheld or kept back from sale or disposition.”^[23] The
land remains “absolute property of
the government.”^[24] The
government “does not part with its title by reserving them (lands), but simply
gives notice to all the world that it desires them for a certain purpose”.^[25]
Absolute disposition of land is not implied from reservation;^[26]
it merely means “a withdrawal of a specified portion of the public domain
from disposal under the land laws and the appropriation thereof, for the time
being, to some particular use or purpose of the general government”.^[27]
As its title remains with the Republic, the reserved land is clearly covered by
the tax exemption provision.

CEBU nevertheless contends that the reservation of the property in favor of NWC or NDC is a form
of disposition of public land which subjects the recipient (NDC) to real estate
taxation under Sec. 115 of the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. 436,^[28]
which states:

“Sec. 115. All lands
granted by virtue of this Act, including homesteads upon which final proof has
not been made or approved shall, even though and while the title remains in the
State, be subject to the ordinary taxes, which shall be paid by the grantee or
the applicant, beginning with the year next following the one in which the concession has been approved, or the
contract has been signed, as the case may be, on the basis of the value fixed
in such filing, approval or signing of
the application, concession or contract.”

The essential question then is whether lands reserved pursuant to
Sec. 83 are comprehended in Sec. 115 and, therefore, taxable.

Section 115 of the Public Land Act should be treated as an
exception to Art. 3, par. (a), of the Assessment Law. While ordinarily public lands are tax exempt because title
thereto belongs to the Republic, Sec. 115 subjects them to real estate tax even
before ownership thereto is transferred in the name of the beneficiaries. Sec. 115 comprehends three (3) modes of
disposition of lands under the Public Land Act, to wit: homestead, concession, and contract.

Liability to real property taxes  under
Sec. 115 is predicated on (a) filing
of homestead application, (b) approval of concession and, (c) signing
of contract. Significantly, without these qualifying
words, the date of the accrual of the real estate tax would be
indeterminate. Since NDC is not a
homesteader and no “contract” (bilateral agreement) was signed, it
would appear, then, that reservation under Sec. 83, being a unilateral act of
the President, falls under “concession”.

“Concession” as a technical term under the Public Land
Act is synonymous with “alienation” and “disposition”, and is
defined in Sec. 10 as “any of the methods authorized by this Act for the
acquisition, lease, use, or benefit of the lands of the public domain other
than timber or mineral lands.” Logically, where Sec. 115 contemplates
authorized methods for acquisition, lease, use, or benefit under the Act, the
taxability of the land would depend on whether reservation under Sec. 83 is one
such method of acquisition, etc. Tersely put, is reservation synonymous with alienation? Or, are the two
terms antithetical and mutually exclusive? Indeed, reservation connotes
retention, while concession (alienation) signifies cession.

Sections 8 and 88 of the Public Land Act provide that reserved
lands are excluded from that mass of public land that may be subject of
disposition, to wit –

“Sec. 8. Only those
lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been
officially delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which
have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by
the Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor those on which a
private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any valid law may be
claimed, or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be
so.”

“Sec. 88. The tract or
tracts of land reserved under the provisions of section eighty-three shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to
occupation, entry, sale, lease, or other disposition until again declared
alienable under the
provisions of this Act or by proclamation of the President” (underscoring
supplied).

As We view it, the effect of reservation under Sec. 83 is to segregate a piece of public land and transform it into non-alienable or non-disposable under the Public Land Act. Section
115, on the other hand, applies to disposable public lands. Clearly, therefore, Sec. 115 does not apply to lands reserved under Sec. 83. Consequently, the subject reserved public land remains tax exempt.

However, as regards the warehouse constructed on a public reservation, a different rule
should apply because “[t]he exemption of public property from taxation
does not extend to improvements on the public lands made by pre-emptioners,
homesteaders and other claimants, or occupants, at their own expense, and these
are taxable by the state x x x x”^[29]
Consequently, the warehouse constructed on the reserved land by NWC (now under administration
by NDC), indeed, should properly be assessed real estate tax as such
improvement does not appear to belong to the Republic.

Since the reservation is exempt from realty tax, the erroneous
tax payments collected by CEBU should be refunded to NDC. This is in consonance with Sec. 40,
par. (a) of the former Real Property Tax Code which exempted from
taxation real property owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its
political subdivisions, as well as any GOCC so exempt by its charter.^[30]

As regards the requirement of paying under protest before
judicial recourse, CEBU argues that in any case NDC is not entitled to refund
because Sec. 75 of R.A. 3857, the Revised Charter of the City of Cebu,^[31]
requires payment under protest before resorting to judicial
action for tax refund; that it could not have acted on the first demand letter
of NDC of 20 May 1970 because it was sent to the City Assessor and not to the
City Treasurer; that, consequently, there having been no appropriate prior
demand, resort to judicial remedy is premature; and, that even on the premise
that there was proper demand, NDC has yet to exhaust administrative remedies by
way of appeal to the Department of Finance and/or Auditor General before taking
judicial action.

NDC does not agree. It
disputes the applicability of the payment-under-protest requirement provided
in Sec. 75 of the Revised Cebu City Charter because the issue is not the
validity of tax assessment but recovery of erroneous payments under Arts. 2154
and 2155 of the Civil Code.^[32] It
cites the case of East Asiatic Co.,
Ltd. v. City of Davao^[33] which held that where the tax is
unauthorized, “it is not a tax assessed under the charter of the appellant
City of Davao and for that reason no protest is necessary for a claim or demand
for its refund.” In Ramie
Textiles, Inc. vs. Mathay, Sr.,^[34] We
held –

“x x x x Protest is
not a requirement in order that a taxpayer who paid under a mistaken belief
that it is required by law, may claim for a refund. Section 54^[35] of Commonwealth Act No. 470 does not apply
to petitioner which could conceivably not have been expected to protest a
payment it honestly believed to be due. The same refers only to the case where the taxpayer, despite his knowledge of the erroneous or illegal assessment, still
pays and fails to make the proper protest, for in such case, he should manifest
an unwillingness to pay, and failing
so, the taxpayer is deemed to have waived his right to claim a refund.

“In the case at bar, petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to
have waived his right. He had no
knowledge of the fact that it was exempted from payment of the realty tax under
Commonwealth Act No. 470. Payment was
made through error or mistake, in the honest belief that petitioner was liable,
and therefore could not have been made under protest, but with complete
voluntariness. In any case, a taxpayer
should not be held to suffer loss by his good intention to comply with what he
believes is his legal obligation, where such
obligation does not really exist x x x x The fact that petitioner paid thru
error or mistake, and the government accepted the payment, gave rise to the
application of the principle of solutio
indebiti under Article 2154
of the New Civil Code, which provides that ‘if something is received when there
is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the
obligation to return it arises.’ There is, therefore, created a tie or
juridical relation in the nature of solutio indebiti, expressly classified as quasi?contract
under Section 2, Chapter I of Title XVII of the New Civil Code.

“The quasi-contract of
solutio indebiti is one of the concrete manifestations of the
ancient principle that no one shall enrich himself unjustly at the expense of
another x x x x Hence, it would seem unedifying for the government, that
knowing it has no right at all to collect or to receive money for alleged taxes
paid by mistake, it would be reluctant to return the same x x x x Petitioner is
not unsatisfied in the assessment of its property. Assessment having been made, it paid the real estate taxes without knowing that it is exempt.”

As regards the claim for refund of tax payments spanning more
than twenty (20) years, We also said in Ramie Textiles that –

“Solutio indebiti is
a quasi-contract, and the
instant case being in the nature of solutio indebiti, the claim for refund must be commenced within
six (6) years from date of payment pursuant to Article 1145 (2) of the New
Civil Codes^[36] x x x x”

We sustain the appellate court to the extent that its decision
covers improperly collected taxes on the
reserved land under Proclamation No. 430, thus –

“The defense of prescription invoked by the defendant which
counsel for the plaintiff, however, did not answer in its memorandum, is partly
well-taken. Actions for refund of taxes
illegally collected must be commenced within six (6) years from the date of
collection x x x x

“The stipulation of facts and the pleadings filed by the
parties do not contain data specifying when and how much were paid by the year,
of the taxes sought to be refunded. Accordingly, the Court has no other alternative but to order the refund
of an undetermined amount based, however, on the date of payment counted six (6) years backward from October 25,
1972, when the complaint in this case was filed.”^[37]

As regards exhaustion of administrative remedies, We agree with
the trial court that the case constitutes an exception to the rule, as it
involves purely questions of law.^[38]
Specifically, on the requirement of appeal to the Secretary of Finance, We
further held in the same Ramie
Textiles that “[E]qually not applicable is Section 17 of Commonwealth
Act No. 470^[39]
cited by respondent in relation to the right of a property owner to contest the validity of assessment x x x x “

Respondent CEBU likewise invites Our attention to the
availability of appeal to the
Government Auditing Office although no authority is cited to Us. We do not find any either to sustain the
procedure.

WHEREFORE, finding that National Development Company (NDC)
is exempt from real estate tax on the reserved land but liable for the
warehouse erected thereon, the decision appealed from is accordingly MODIFIED. Consequently,
let this case be remanded to the court of origin, now the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, to determine the proper liability of NDC, particularly on its
warehouse, and effect the corresponding refund, payment or set-off, as the case
may be, conformably with this decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Padilla, and
Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., on leave.

^[1] A
government-owned or controlled corporation is defined in Sec. 2 of P.D. 2029 as
“a stock or a non-stock corporation, whether performing governmental or
proprietary functions, which is directly chartered by special law or if
organized under the general corporation law is owned or controlled by the
government directly, or indirectly through a parent corporation or subsidiary
corporation, to the extent of at least a majority of its outstanding capital
stock or its outstanding voting capital stock x x x x”

p.cw12

^[2]
C.A. 182, “An Act to Create a Public Corporation to be known as the ‘National
Development Company’, to Define its Powers and Duties, to Appropriate the
Necessary Funds Therefor, Repealing Thereby Acts Numbered Twenty-Eight Hundred
and Forty-Nine and Twenty-Eight Hundred and Seventy-Three”, which took effect 1
January 1937.

^[3]
E.O. 399, “Uniform Charter for Government Corporations”, dated 5 January 1951.

^[4]
Joint Stipulation of Facts, 1st and 2nd pars., Record on Appeal, p. 12.

^[5]
Proclamation No. 430 provides: “Upon
the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce and pursuant to
the provisions of Section Eighty-Three of Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred
and Forty-One, I hereby withdraw from sale or settlement and reserve for
warehouse purposes, under the administration of the National Warehousing
Corporation, subject to private rights, if any there be, block numbered four of
Reclamation Area Numbered Four of the City of Cebu.”

^[6]
Joint Stipulation of Facts, par. 3, Record on Appeal, pp. 12-13.

^[7]
Ibid., par. 4.

^[8]
E.O. 93, “Abolishing the National Enterprises Control Board, Creating the
Government Enterprises Council, Transferring the Metropolitan Transportation
Service to the Manila Railroad Company, Dissolving and Merging Certain
Corporations Owned or Controlled by the Government, and for Other Purposes”,
effective 4 October 1947.

^[9]
Joint Stipulation of Facts, par. 5, Record on Appeal, p. 13.

^[10]
Ibid., par. 6.

^[11]
Ibid.

^[12]
P96,401.37 was paid without protest (see Joint Stipulation of Facts, par. 13,
Record on Appeal, pp. 14-15).

^[13]
Joint Stipulation of Facts, par. 8, Record on Appeal, p. 14.

^[14]
Penned by Judge Federico C. Alikpala, then Presiding Judge, CFI – Manila, Br.
XXII, Record on Appeal, pp. 54-55.

^[15]
The following are the five (5) errors assigned:

I. The trial court erred in not
finding that plaintiff National Development Company is liable for real estate
taxes when using the land and building, subject of this case, for business
purposes.

II. The trial court erred in not
finding that plaintiff had not exhausted all administrative remedies before
filing the instant action.

III. The trial court erred in not
finding that reservations for public use by means of presidential proclamation under
Sections 83 – 85 of the Public Land Law are forms of disposition or grants of
public lands and, therefore, the lands so disposed of are subject to real
estate taxes.

IV. The trial court erred in
ordering defendant to refund plaintiff a portion of the taxes paid when said
payment was not made under protest as required by the City Charter of the
defendant City.

V. The trial court erred in
sentencing the City of Cebu to refund plaintiff the amounts paid for real
estate taxes for the land covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 438 and the
warehouse erected thereon from and after 25 October 1966 with interest thereon
from date of filing of the complaint and cost of the suit (Brief for
Defendant-Appellants, pp. 1-3).

^[16]
C.A. 141, approved 7 November 1936, Sec. 83 of which provides: “Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce, the President may designate by proclamation any tract
or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the
inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this
purpose, or for quasi-public uses or purposes, when the public interest
requires it, including reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads,
hydraulic power sites, irrigation systems, communal pastures or leguas comunales, public parks,
public quarries, public fishponds, workingmen’s village and other improvements
for the public benefit.”

^[17]
C.A. 470, effective 1 January 1940.

^[18]
118 Phil. 227, prom. 31 May 1963.

^[19]
We held in Province of Nueva Ecija v. Imperial Mining Company, Inc., G.R.
No. L-59463, prom. 19 November 1982, 118 SCRA 632: “When IMC in 1968 obtained lease on the mineral land in question,
the law governing real property taxation was the former Assessment Law,
Commonwealth Act 470, and the basis of realty taxation thereunder was ownership
or interest tantamount to ownership. A mere lessee of mineral land was therefore not liable for the
payment of realty tax thereon x x x x. In 1974, a new Real Property Tax Code came into being when Presidential
Decree 464 was issued. It changed the
basis of real property taxation. It
adopted the policy of taxing real property on the basis of actual use, even
if the user is not the owner.”

^[20]
G.R. No. 51223, 25 November 1983; 125 SCRA 752.

^[21]
118 Phil 1084, October 22, 1963.

^[22]
Consequently, erroneous reliance by NWSA v. Quezon City, B.R. No. L-25310, 26 April 1968, 23
SCRA 286, and Social Security System v. City of Bacolod G.R. No. L-35726,
21 July 1982, 115 SCRA 412, on BAA v. CTA and NWSA, should be
reexamined. In NWSA v. Quezon City, We
held: “x x x x The properties of NWSA
are exempt from realty tax as properties of the Republic of the
Philippines under Sec. 47 (a) of Republic Act 537 (Revised Charter of Quezon
City) x x x x”

In SSS v. City of Bacolod, We
ruled: “What is decisive is that the
properties possessed by the SSS, albeit devoted to private or proprietary
purpose, are in fact owned by the government of the Philippines. As such they are exempt from realty taxes x
x x x”

The SSS case appears to have
proceeded from the premise that properties of SSS are ipso facto owned
by the Republic. In fact, it views Sec.
16 of P.D. 24 exempting SSS and its assets from taxation a confirmation of its
ruling. We are not persuaded; P.D. 24
speaks of properties owned by SSS, while the decision alludes to properties
owned by the Republic. That conclusion
is a misapplication of the BAA ruling.

^[23]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 1473, citing Donley v. Van
Horn, 49 Cal. App. 383, 193 P. 514, 516.

^[24]
73 CJS 720.

^[25]
Footnote No. 85 in 73 CJS 717-718 citing US v. Payne, D.C. Ark. 8 F 883,
2 McCrary 289.

^[26]
Words and Phrases, Vol. 37, p. 167, citing Jackson v. Wilcox, 2
III. (1 Scam) 344, 359.

^[27]
73 CJS 717.

^[28]
R.A. 436, approved June 7, 1950.

^[29]
84 CJS 383.

^[30]
Sec. 40, P.D. 464, effective 1 June
1974, provides: “Exemptions from
Real Property Tax. – The exemptions
shall be as follows: (a) Real property
owned by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions
and any government-owned corporation so exempt by its charter: Provided, however, That
this exemption shall not apply to real property of the above-named entities the
beneficial use of which has been granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a
taxable person x x x”

^[31]
Sec. 75, R.A. 3857, approved 10 June 1964, provides: “No court shall entertain any suit assailing the validity of a
tax assessed under
this article until the taxpayer shall have paid, under protest, the taxes
assessed against him x x x x”

^[32]
Art. 2154 provides: “If something is received when there is no
right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation
to return it arises.”

Art. 2155 provides: “Payment
by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a doubtful or difficult question of law
may come within the scope of the preceding article.”

^[33] G.R. No. L-16253, 21
August 1962; 5 SCRA 873.

^[34]
G.R. No. L-32364, 30 April 1979; 89 SCRA 586.

^[35]
“Sec. 54. Restriction upon power of
court to impeach tax. – No court shall entertain any suit assailing
the validity of a tax assessed under this Act until the taxpayer shall have
paid, under protest, the taxes assessed against him x x x x”

^[36]
Art. 1145, par. 2, provides: “The following
actions must be commenced within six years: x x x x Upon a quasi-contract.”

^[37]
Record on Appeal, p. 54.

^[38]
Valmonte v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 74930, 13 February 1989; 170 SCRA 256.

^[39]
“Sec 17. Appeal by owner to the Board of Tax Appeals. – Any owner who is not satisfied with the action of a
provincial assessor in the assessment of his property may x x x appeal to the
Board of Tax Appeals x x x x Sec. 18. x
x x x If the taxpayer is not satisfied with the decision of the Board of Tax
Appeals, he may likewise appeal to the Secretary of Finance x x x x”